On 24/09/2015 16:40, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 14:31:26 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home
wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting
a good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder
and more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to
know what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts
quickly and effecintly. Which is why people pay for
photographers.

Whisky Dave, you talk as if to be "a photographer" you need to use
film rather than digital.

Where did you get that idea. why do peole employ photographers at
wedding when you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those
attending will have cameras and have the ability to take pictures
that are in focus and of correct exposure ?

The guests are too busy to stand there and take formal pictures.

The last wedding I went I gave the photographer the pictures I had taken
and they are in the wedding album with the formal ones.

The brides mother is a professional wedding photographer so she could
have done it herself if she didn't want to be in the shots.



Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos.

How can you tell good from bad ?

How can you?
Its personal choice and what you or anyone else thinks is pretty much
irrelevant unless you are doing them for someone else.



Whether you use film or digital doesn't really affect that

I agree.


- to be a good photographer you need to know how to get the results
that you want,

or what others want.

which involves knowing a bit about how to get the best out of your
medium (film/digital) and its technical limitations (eg exposure
latitude, the need to get exposure right, how to focus).

Really but why not tell the student to set it to auto, surely that's
all that's needed.

And then you need how to take a good picture which is a matter of
composition and what to leave out as well as what to leave in.

Yep and that's as easy to do, you don't even need a camera. Artists
have learnt how to frame for centuries.

Artists have advantages over photographers, they don't have to be at the
viewpoint.


When digital cameras first came out, they had such a narrow
exposure latitude and such low-resolution sensors that they were
only really suitable for quick record shots. But things have moved
on a lot since then, to the extent that *if you know what you are
doing* you can take just as good pictures with digital as with
film. For specialised purposes, you may need the very high
resolution of large-format film, but then there are specialised
digital cameras which match this with ultra high res sensors.
Likewise, specialised digital cameras can "see" infra-red (*) or
ultra-violet - just like specialised film can.

all irrelivant to teaching photography.

So is film.


(*) To some extent, *all* digital cameras can see IR: the sensor,
as manufactured, is sensitive to IR but this is blocked by a filter
in camera - which can be removed (at the expense of voiding the
warranty!) by astronomers who want to take IR pictures - it's a
well-known modification, especially on a camera that would
otherwise be thrown away.



Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar
with both media can do with film that can't be done with digital?

well depends what you mean. paramount pictures can't remaster the
Star trek Deep space 9 series as well as they can the original with
kirk in it. Because the digital media used for DS9 was realively low
res. and can;t be imporved even by upscalling.

However they have done so if you compare the latest showings with the
original stuff.


So here we see film as better, and with the new star wars film they
are also using film even though they can apparently emulate how bad
film is compared to digital they are using film. Youll have to ask
paramount if you want to know why.


Film was better but it isn't now.
Insisting on using an old medium that is inferior quality is idleness as
you can lower the quality in post processing if you used digital in the
first place.



Or are you claiming that someone who uses digital, no matter how
proficiently, isn't "a photographer" but just someone who takes
photos?

Again I'm talking about teaching. if you want to teach someone how to
fly you take them up in a small manually controlled plan NOT the
latest 757 which can land itself.


Just use an airport without the ILS.

You can teach someone to fly a cessena if you want but it won't teach
them to fly a jumbo.